Weer'd World

So in her latest post Joan Peterson asks this one:

Can we look at ourselves and say we have done all we can do to prevent senseless shootings? No. Can we at least have some national reflection on the topic without it turning into an ugly “gun grabbing” conversation? It doesn’t seem so. Can we agree that some measures will stop some shootings? I hope so. Can we converge on a road that leads to more public safety and fewer gun deaths? One would think so. Is it understood that not every law will stop every shooting?

The first question I agree with Joan, we haven’t done all we can, just our idea of a solution is different, but for both of us at least our stated end goal is the same. I absolutely want to have “Gun Death” be as small as possible, as with ALL violent crime. Joan claims the same thing, tho for obvious reasons, and we’ll talk more about them, I don’t believe she is being totally honest. This is the dichotomy of the gun debate. We both want the same thing. The antis have made claims that our side is uninterested in violent crime, and we just have a “fetish” for guns. That’s simply a straw man, and I suspect they know it.

The second question is really obvious, just look at the quote previously posted:

Britain had tightened regulations after the 1987 Hungerford massacre, which also killed 16 people, said CNN. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, as it’s known, made registration of shotguns mandatory and banned semi-automatic and pump-action weapons. Firearms amnesties after Hungerford and Dunblane netted thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition.

Sorry, Joan, you PRAISE Britain and Australia for their massive seizure of legally held firearms, but you don’t want us to brand you and your compatriots as “Gun Grabbers”. Sorry, I own lots of guns, and many of these guns you don’t think I should have. You’re a gun grabber. You should either make your peace with that, or change your agenda. As for that discussion you claim to want, well I’d post some rebuttals to your post, but you won’t have me, nor many others. Also “Discussions” that get through your illogical filter tend to end with you telling them to “Shut up” and go someplace else. So quit talking about having a discussion when all you do is demand an echo-chamber.

As for public safety concerns, well here’s a good start, but it doesn’t fit your agenda, so what do you REALLY care about.

Seems your passion is being a “Gun Grabber”, not an advocate for public safety. But you hate being called that. My question to you is, why do you feel that way?

IF she was interested in a discussion she’d answer that here, but we know what will happen.

First is one they should know better about, but don’t:

Yep, because every other amendment in the Bill of Rights is magically frozen in the 18th Century! I mean I have no freedom of speech in this blog because the computer and the internet didn’t exist in the 18th Century. TV News has no freedom of the press because radio, satellite, and TVs didn’t exist then either.

Heck Newspapers don’t have a freedom of press because they aren’t hand-setting their printing presses.

Of course the list goes on, such as the 4th Amendment not allowing indiscriminate wire-tapping of phones, or hacking my computer from afar.

And of course the 2nd Amendment wasn’t about GUNS it was about ARMS! Yeah, swords, knives, clubs and other arms are protected too!

They have no idea what they’re talking about, but they’re still talking!

Next up this!

First up, I’m not one of those guys who owns a Jane’s Guide to XYZ, and I can’t really spot military equipment well. I don’t know the difference between a Abrams and a Sherman tank, and I couldn’t even name a Ruskie tank, let alone pick out out of a lineup.

Still I can tell that there is Soviet technology mixed in with American, and God-knows what else (I’m sure somebody will have fun naming the shit in this image).

I will note that the SVD Rifle is something Americans can and do own, as well as superior technology. The ICBMs, the Nuclear Subs, cruise missiles. and the artillery aren’t really something the .gov could effectively use against a political revolt on their own soil, as it would be leveling civilian targets and do nothing more than make the fence-sitters really know its time to arm up and start shooting back.

Also many of those items will be captured or defect in the event of a shooting war between a tyrannical government and true patriots.

Still these prevalent images really strike me as masturbation of the anti-gun people. They don’t want to debate with us, they don’t like that we push back against their stupid agenda, so really they wish our impressive military would just pack up and exterminate us.

And that’s why we own guns!